the grand opening of the “other holes don’t create life” center

Do you know which university is opening a new “Dalai Lama Center for Ethics and Transformative Values”?

Maharishi University of Management is the obvious pick, but that’s not it. And it’s also not Lhasa University (Go Fighting Sherpas!), although that’s a great guess too. Nor is it Buddha College, Western Karma, or the Gelug School.

With the launch of the Dalai Lama center, MIT is breaking new ground in the world of academic science: no other major science research institution in the U.S. has a center named for a contemporary religious leader.

Might this conflict with its mission of teaching about, well, science and technology? Not according to the scientific authorities at the Santa Barbara Institute for Consciousness Studies:

“Buddhism has no history of conflict with science,” says B. Alan Wallace, president of the Santa Barbara Institute for Consciousness Studies in Santa Barbara, Calif. “In that regard, it may seem non-threatening to certain scientists who’ve grown very wary of Christians, who they think always have an agenda to try to plug intelligent design or their own particular theological creed.”

If Buddhism has no history of conflict with science, it’s only because science considers Buddhism too ludicrous to pay attention to.

I may not have been clever enough to go to MIT, but I am pretty sure that most of those things conflict with “science,” which (for instance) has never managed to find “seeds” in the mind, and whose Michelson-Morley experiment provided strong evidence against the existence of “karma.”

What’s more, the center’s namesake is believed by Buddhists to be the “reincarnation” of his predecessors. When he dies, his Buddhist buddies will go to a “holy” lake and watch for signs indicating to them which toddler’s going to be the next Lama, at which point they’ll kidnap him and haul him off to a monastery, where they can fill his head with all sorts of nonsense about rebirth and samsara and karma and dharma and shawarma.

Although he is known for his tolerant, humane views, he is a surprisingly harsh critic of homosexuality. If you are a Buddhist, he says, it is wrong. “Full stop.

No way round it.

“A gay couple came to see me, seeking my support and blessing. I had to explain our teachings. Another lady introduced another woman as her wife – astonishing. It is the same with a husband and wife using certain sexual practices. Using the other two holes is wrong.”

[…]

“A Western friend asked me what harm could there be between consenting adults having oral sex, if they enjoyed it,” the Dalai Lama continues, warming to his theme. “But the purpose of sex is reproduction, according to Buddhism. The other holes don’t create life.

20 Responses

They used an “interferometer” to send light in different directions, looking for “karmic” changes in phase. To the surprise of everyone, they found nothing! Further experimentation replicated the results, and nowadays it’s virtually impossible to find a physics book that even mentions karma.

Admittedly there are “high” and “low” forms of Buddhism. The “high” forms are more theologically-oriented, the “low” forms stress the immediate causal relations and the ever-changing “identitiy” rather than some nebulous notion of divine kings, reincarnation & cet.

I was surprised at the Dalai Lama’s position on homosexuality because in Buddhism, desire is desire. There’s no “these holes are bad” argument… disappointing to hear. That’s cultural relativism (and “high” Buddhism) rearing its ugly head.

Of course, I’m Muslim, so I guess I’m on an even shorter end of the stick on this website…

I didn’t ask how they ran the experiment. Karma is just the philosophy of Cause and Effect, the physics of cause applied as a psychology of action… so, you say that Michelson/Morley found no cause and no effect? How does measuring the speed of light have anything to do with a philosophy of Karma?

Yes. If Karma is not subject to standards of “proving or disproving,” then it’s not possible to make “fallacious” statements about it. Fallacies are errors in reasoning and you seem to be claiming Karma is not subject to reasoning.

“If Karma is not subject to standards of “proving or disproving,” then it’s not possible to make “fallacious” statements about it. Fallacies are errors in reasoning and you seem to be claiming Karma is not subject to reasoning.”

I claim Joel’s understanding is fallacious, and therefore his arguments are in error.

Joel:

“Karma, the notion that good and bad actions produce “seeds” in the mind which come to fruition either in this life or in a subsequent rebirth.”

““science,” which (for instance) has never managed to find “seeds” in the mind,”

repeat:

“Science shouldn’t bother concerning itself with proving or disproving a literary or philosophical metaphor (Karmic “seeds”) as though it were a literal fact.”

It is an absurd argument to suggest Science can find such things as an idea in the brain. Science will never be able to find philosophical or metaphorical ‘seeds’, let alone an actual factual object in the brain which is an ‘idea’, or anything like a self or soul. As real objects they do not exist. They are a metaphor, a philosophical tool. they are not real.

Joel’s understanding is fallacious.

As to your question – Is karma subject to proof?

Proposition: Everything has a cause.
Proposition: Everything is made of constituent parts.
Proposition: Everything depends upon everything else, relies on other ‘things’ to exist in order for it to exist: everything is ‘connected’ to everything else.

These are basic tenants of Buddhist philosophy.

Is there anything there you disagree with?

Karma is just ’cause’ … everything comes together from the appropriate and suitable causes and conditions.